Strategies of Remembering In

GREECE UNDER (100 BC - 100 AD) ROME STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN

STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD)

At the beginning of the first century BC Athens was an independent city bound to Rome through a friendship alliance. By the end of the first century AD the city had been incorporated into the Roman province of Achaea. Along with Athenian independence perished the notion of Greek self-rule. The rest of Achaea was ruled by the governor of Macedonia already since 146 BC, but the numerous defections of Greek cities during the first century BC show that Roman rule was not yet viewed as inevitable.

In spite of the definitive loss of self-rule this was not a period of decline. Attica and the Peloponnese were special regions because of their legacy as cultural and religious centres of the Mediterranean. Supported by this legacy communities and individuals engaged actively with the increasing presence of Roman rule and its representatives. The archaeological and epigraphic records attest to the continued economic vitality of the region: buildings, statues, and lavish tombs were still being constructed. There is hence need to counterbalance the traditional discourses of weakness on Roman Greece, and to highlight how acts of remembering were employed as resources in this complex political situation.

The legacy of Greece defined Greek and Roman responses to the changing relationship. Both parties looked to the past in shaping their interactions, but how this was done varied widely. Sulla fashioned himself after the tyrant-slayers Harmodius and Aristogeiton, while Athenian ephebes evoked the sea-battles of the Persian Wars to fashion their valour. This interdisciplinary volume traces strategies of remembering in city building, funerary culture, festival and association, honorific practices, Greek literature, and political ideology. The variety of these strategies attests to the vitality of the region. In STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING times of transition the past cannot be ignored: actors use what came before, in diverse and complex ways, in order to build the present. IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD)

VI edited by Tamara M. Dijkstra, Inger N.I. Kuin, ISBN 978-90-8890-480-6

Sidestone Press Sidestone Muriel Moser & David Weidgenannt ISBN: 978-90-8890-480-6

PUBLICATIONS OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE AT ATHENS VI 9 789088 904806 NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE AT ATHENS VI Source reference: Dijkstra, T.M., I.N.I. Kuin, M. Moser & D. Weidgenannt (eds) 2017: Strategies of Remembering in Greece under Rome (100 BC - 100 AD), Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens VI, Leiden (Sidestone Press). SIDESTONE PRESS

This is a free offprint – as with all our publications the entire book is freely accessible on our website, where you can also buy a printed copy or pdf E-book.

WWW.SIDESTONE.COM STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD)

edited by Tamara M. Dijkstra, Inger N.I. Kuin, Muriel Moser & David Weidgenannt

Published by Sidestone Press, Leiden www.sidestone.com

Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens VI

Co-financed by the SFB 1095 “Discources of Weakness and Resource Regimes” of the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft

Imprint: Sidestone Press

Lay-out & cover design: Sidestone Press Photograph cover: Akropolis, photo: byrefresh(PIX) (stock.adobe.com)

ISBN 978-90-8890-480-6 (softcover) ISBN 978-90-8890-481-3 (hardcover) ISBN 978-90-8890-482-0 (PDF e-book) Contents

Contents 5

About the editors 7

List of contributors 9

Preface: Relaunching the Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens Series 11

Introduction 13 Tamara M. Dijkstra, Inger N.I. Kuin, Muriel Moser, and David Weidgenannt

Part I: Building Remembrance

Roman Greece and the ‘Mnemonic Turn’. Some Critical Remarks 21 Dimitris Grigoropoulos, Valentina Di Napoli, Vasilis Evangelidis, Francesco Camia, Dylan Rogers and Stavros Vlizos

Strategies of Remembering in the Creation of a Colonial Society in Patras 37 Tamara M. Dijkstra

Contending with the Past in Roman Corinth: The Julian Basilica 49 Catherine de Grazia Vanderpool and Paul D. Scotton

Part II: Competing with the Past

Heritage Societies? Private Associations in Roman Greece 71 Benedikt Eckhardt

Performing the Past: Salamis, Naval Contests and the Athenian Ephebeia 83 Zahra Newby Greek Panhellenic Agones in a Roman Colony: Corinth and the Return of the Isthmian Games 97 Lavinia del Basso

Part III: Honoring Tradition

Heroes of Their Times. Intra-Mural Burials in the Urban Memorial Landscapes of the Roman Peloponnese 111 Johannes Fouquet

Public Statues as a Strategy of Remembering in Early Imperial Messene 125 Christopher Dickenson

Shortages, Remembering and the Construction of Time: Aspects of Greek Honorific Culture (2nd century BC – 1st century AD) 143 David Weidgenannt

Part IV: History in Athens

Anchoring Political Change in Post-Sullan Athens 157 Inger N.I. Kuin

Reused Statues for Roman Friends: The Past as a Political Resource in Roman Athens 169 Muriel Moser

Strategies of Remembering in Greece under Rome: Some Conclusions 183 Inger N.I. Kuin and Muriel Moser

Index 187

Reused Statues for Roman Friends: The Past as a Political Resource in Roman Athens

Muriel Moser

Abstract A number of public honorific monuments dedicated by the Athenian demos to Roman politicians between the sack of Sulla and the reign of Nero consisted of old, reused statue monuments. This article explores the history of these statues by looking at the role they played in the relationship between Athens and Rome and in inner-Athenian debates about the management of the public space on the Acropolis, where these reused monuments were located. I hence explore the political strategies that were pursued in this manipulation of the Athenian past. The first part of the article locates the statues in the context of the relation between Athens and Rome. I argue that the Athenian polity used old statue monuments as a means of gaining support and favour from Roman politicians. The second section then considers the reused statues as an expression of the assertion of democratic control over public space.

Keywords: Athens, Roman empire, political resources, honorific statues, Greek polis

1. Introduction Athens’ position was a difficult one in the last decades of the 1st century BC. Financially, the city suffered from the disruptions caused by the sack of Sulla. Her situation was also complex in political terms following the Roman civil wars: the city had supported several Roman generals who had been unable to assert their authority in Rome, including Marc Antony in his battle against Augustus (Tac. Ann. 2.55). As a result, it was necessary to secure powerful friends in Rome willing to assist the city with financial and political support. Due to several regime changes, there was also need for political stability and a strong political authority within the city. The present article discusses one key strategy that was used by Athens in this context: the reuse of old statue monuments. Between the mid-1st century BC and the mid-1st century AD, 21 statue monuments set up in Classical or Hellenistic times on the Athenian Acropolis were being rededicated to foreign benefactors, in particular Roman politi-

in: Dijkstra, T.M., I.N.I. Kuin, M. Moser & D. Weidgenannt (eds) 2017. Strategies of Remembering in Greece under Rome (100 BC - 100 AD), Leiden (Sidestone Press). 169 cians.1 Their reuse, which peaked under Augustus, has and Cic. Att. 6.1.46 which are often cited in this context). been interpreted as evidence for the weakness of Athens These old statues were rededicated to some of the most under Rome or as an attempt to preserve the Greek aspect influential men in Rome, including the grandfather of of her Acropolis.2 Some of such readings were heavily Nero and Augustus’ son in law.5 This means that unless we influenced by a speech by Dio Chrysostom (Dio Chrys. want to concede that the Athenians wanted to jeopardize Or. 31), who criticizes the cheapening of public honours their relationship with these men by honouring them with through the reuse of honorific statues in Roman Rhodes, cheap, old statues, there must be some grounded explana- as well as by an inscription from Roman Lindos (I.Lindos tion to account for the award of old statues to the most II, no. 419) which documents the auction of old statues powerful senators in Rome. in the sanctuary. It is also informed by the traditional As I show in what follows, a careful reuse of old view of Athens as a weak city under Roman rule engaged statues by the Athenian demos allowed manipulating in (cultural) resistance against Roman dominance these survivals of the past as a means to represent new (e.g. Graindor 1927; Day 1942; Touloumakos 1967; Roman honorands as dynamic, resourceful supporters of Bernhardt 1985, 39-49; Deininger 1971, esp. 242-261; Athens. They were hence perfectly suited to function as Geagan 1997; Spawforth 2012). prestigeous honours to ask for support and favour from A closer analysis of the material quickly reveals that influential Roman politicians. The second part of the the reuse cannot be explained only with reference to lack article proposes to consider the statues in polis culture and of time, power or financial means: the 21 preserved reused society. I argue that the reuse of statues enabled political monuments constituted only 13% of the monuments dynamism in Athens: in the process the Athenian demos dedicated to Romans on the Acropolis in this period; asserted its agency in the relationship with Rome, while at 87% were new monuments made for the occasion.3 It also the same time also establishing its authority over public remains to be proven that old statues were better suited space on the memory-charged Acropolis. to preserve the Greek appearance of the Acropolis than the new monuments, for the latter came in an antiquated, Greek form and hence also emphasized the historical im- 2. Old statues for Roman benefactors portance of the place.4 Further, the identity of the Roman Benefactor relationships in Hellenistic cities were a senators honoured with such reused statues also strongly complex matter. In accepting the beneficence of a wealthy calls into question the traditional argument that these elite, cities entered into a social contract with the bene- were cheap honours (as it is implied by Dio Chrys. Or. 31 factor. Honorific statues played a key role in this context. Cities often returned the favour with such a statue, which embodied both the gratitude for a past benefaction and 1 The reused monuments are discussed in detail in Krumeich 2010, 369-385, with photographs and drawings in Keesling 2010 the expectation for future beneficence. Honorific statues and Krumeich 2010. A new catalogue of the inscriptions of the carried important political messages: they constituted Roman Acropolis is in preparation, see Krumeich & Witschel public narratives about the values and expectations of (forthcoming). Note that this list excludes the honours to the the respective citizenry which communicated unspoken imperial family (statuary column for Tiberius, IG II/III² 3244 rules as well as expectations of common intentions and with Krumeich 2008, 356, a dynastic statue group for Augustus 6 and three of his successors, IG II/III² 3253-3256 and 3892 with action. This matrix was also used for external benefac- Krumeich 2008, 357, as well as two equestrian monuments for tors, including Roman senators who from the late 2nd Antony and then for Agrippa , IG II/III² 4122, and Germanicus, century onwards increasingly acted as benefactors in the IG II/III² 3260, in front of the Propylaea, on which see Krumeich Greek East (Quass 1984; Tanner 2000; Eilers 2002). By 2008, 362 and Krumeich 2010, 358 with illustrations). Earlier the late 1st century BC, Roman elites had become used to discussions of the monuments include Blanck 1969; Payne 1984; Pérrin-Saminadayar 2007, 131-135; Shear 2006; Ma 2007; this tradition of receiving honorary statues in return for Keesling 2007; Krumeich 2008, 2011, 2014a, 2014b; Krumeich & favours (Tanner 2000 and, for Athens in particular, Corn. Witschel 2009, 2010 and Lo Monaco 2016. On Augustan Athens, Nep. Att. 3.1-2 on Atticus’ statues in Athens). see conveniently Dickenson 2017; Spawforth 2012; Böhme 1995 While the deliberations of the civic institutions took and Geagan 1979 with references to older literature as well as the place orally and were quickly forgotten, the perennial classic study by Graindor 1927. 2 E.g. Blanck 1969; Shear 2006; Krumeich & Witschel 2009, 2010; nature of the statue monument and its visual impact had Keesling 2010, 318 (preservation of memory of earlier artists); the potential to shape public opinion for a long time. As Krumeich 2008, 2010, 2011, 2014a, 2014b. 3 Krumeich 2014, 71 with pl. 16 d. This proportion accords with evidence from the Lindian Acropolis (on which see Rose 1997, 5 IG II/III² 4144, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (PIR² D 128) and IG I³ 25,155) and suggests that Dio’s statement that in Rhodes most 833 + IG II/III³ 4147, L. Aemilius Paullus, (PIR² A 391). benefactors received reused statues rather than new monuments 6 On public honorary statues in Hellenistic cities under Rome, see must be taken with a grain of salt (Dio Chrys. Or. 107, 118). Van Nijf 2015, 2016; on the strategic wording of the dedicatory 4 Old-fashioned look: Krumeich 2010, 345. inscription see also Luraghi 2010 and Weidgenannt this volume.

170 STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) Figure 1. Pedestal of the statue of Archinos/Lentulus (Drawing by Antonia Brauchle & Zoe Spyranti. Source: Krumeich 2010, pl. 54 fig. 2).

a result, statuary portraits of honorific statues were chosen not to offer a truthful rep- resentation of the benefactor, but to display the qualities he had shown or which were expected of him (Van Nijf 2015, 341). The shape of the statues hence influenced the way in which their honorands were seen as benefactors. This raises an important question: what did the Athenians communicate to their Roman honorands in these reused statues? In what follows, I look in detail at three monuments which allow highlighting some of the main characteristics of reused honorific statues on the Athenian Acropolis. There are the monuments of P. Cornelius Lentulus, an influential politician and augur in Rome (Figure 1), L. Valerius Catullus, member of the influential family of theValerii Catulii, some of whom became close supporters of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Figure 2), and the influential L. Cassius Longinus, a descendant of one of the murderers of Caesar and ancestor of the emperor Caligula (Figures 3 and 4); the monuments of Cn. Acerronius Proculus, C. Aelius Gallus and P. Octavius, all of whom held high office in eastern provinces, are discussed for comparison and contrast.7 These monuments were reused during the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty; both the bases as well as the statues were reused in the process.8 What was being communicated through these statues? First, the award of a reused statue was a mark of respect and distinction. It suggested that the Athenians recognized its honorand as a powerful, cultured Roman politician of high standing. These reused statues will have constituted rare, prestigious honours in the eyes of Roman senators

7 PIR² C 1379; PIR¹ V 39; PIR² C 502; PIR² A 33; PIR² A 179; PIR² O 19 . 8 The lack of any damage to the stones suggests that the original statues remained in situ during the reuse, as was the case in other instances of statue reuse in this period (Rhodes: Dio Chrys. Or. 31. 47, 154-156, sanctuary of Athena Lindia: I.Lindos II no. 419, and Oropos, on which see Petrakos 1997). It is possible that the heads of the statues were exchanged in the process, yet due to the lack of evidence (none of the bronze statues survive), this must remain a hypothesis, see Krumeich 2010, 346-350. The statues may also have undergone restoration, receiving new paint or accessories that fit the new honorand (see Dio Chrys. Or. 31. 82), yet there is no evidence for this in Athens. A statement from Cicero, who criticized the reuse of statues (Cic. Ep. ad Att. 6.1.46), perhaps rather implies that the statues in Athens were not altered to resemble the new honorand but retained their original shape and appearance.

Reused Statues for Roman Friends 171 Figure 2. Pedestal of the statues of Lysiphanes and his mother Sostrate/L. Valerius Catullus and his mother Terentia Hispulla (Drawing from Antonia Brauchle & Zoe Spyranti. Source: Krumeich 2010, pl. 67 fig. 21).

(also Shear 2006, 245 and Krumeich 2008, 405-409) due the inscription for Catullus and the second of that for his to their shape, quality and age. First, they were a far more mother encircle the signature of Piston, while leaving a impressive sight than the newly made monuments. Their noticeable gap to carefully accentuate it. statues were mounted on unusually large and exquisite As a result and as was argued already by Julia Shear, statue bases which were easily distinguished from the the reuse of old statues allowed the Athenians to honour more recent small quadratic bases (Krumeich 2008, 405). Romans with ‘a bronze ‘Old Master portrait’’ (Shear 2006, Their material was also different: while the more recent 245). Art from Classical Athens was in high demand statue bases were made of Hymettian or Eleusinian stone, among Roman elites at the time (e.g. Plin. HN 35,125, those of many of the older, reused monuments were made 150 and Tac. Ann. 54.1; see also evidence discussed in of Pentelic marble, which was more sought after as it was Tanner 2000 and Anguissola 2014), so that the award of used predominantly in Classical time.9 an old statue was probably a mark of distinction, even if The quality of the reused statue was further underlined the respective artists were unknown in Rome (Shear 2006, by the identity of their sculptors, for the reused statues 245). It suggested that these Roman honorands were con- were made by famous artists of the past, whose signatures noisseurs of Athenian art. As a result, it is likely that there were carefully preserved on the stones.10 This is neatly il- was competition among Romans for such old statues, as lustrated by the statue of Archinos/Lentulus (IG II/III³ this was sought by one’s fellow Roman elites (Shear 2006, 4102 = Krumeich 2010, 374 no. A7, Figure 1). When the 245). Athens had long been recognized as a centre of inscription for Archinos was chiselled out on the front of Greek art and culture by many Romans, who came to the the stone, the signature of Kephisodotos, the artist who city to study in its schools of philosophy, rhetoric, history made the statue it supported, was carefully retained in line and art (e.g. Prop. Eleg 3.21); the Athenians were hence 4. The new dedicatory inscription was added in such a perfectly placed to pass judgement on the quality of the way that it stood out as a feature of particular significance, Greek sophistication of their Roman friends. somewhat detached from the content of the new dedica- These statues thus had an important antiquarian tion. Another striking example of the preservation of the value. Given the Roman interest in Athenian art and artist’s signature is the dedication for L. Valerius Catullus culture, they also carried an important honorific value, and his mother Terentia Hispulla (IG II/III³ 3850 + 4159 in that they could be used as a mark of distinction and = Krumeich 2010, 382 no. B6, Figure 2). The first line of culture. However, their honorific value was not restrict- ed to the concerns of students of art. Rather, the reused monuments consciously played with memories of the 9 The new bases measured c. 19 x 63 x 65 cm, while e.g. the pedestal for Archinos/Lentulus (Figure 1) measured 26,7 x 120,5 x 59,8 cm admired (Classical) past of Athens and its culture, while and that for Hegelochos/Cassius (Figures 3 and 4) 35 x 64 x 130 transporting it into the Roman period. The reuse of old cm. The large pedestals of Lentulus (Figure 1) and Cassius (Figure statues for Roman honorands suggested that these could 3 and 4) were made of Pentelic marble. For the measurements and be represented with old statues showing Athenian citizens, material see the catalogue of Krumeich 2010 and Keesling 2010. thereby implying that the two were in some way compa- 10 Keesling 2007, 156, 2010, 313-331. The preservation of the artist’s signature on rededicated statues (even on those cases where the original dedicatory inscription was erased) was common also in Oropos, see Blanck 1969, 71-74, no. B 3-15; Petrakos 1997.

172 STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) Figure 3. Facsimile of the pedestal of a statue of Hegelochos, reused as a public honorary statue for L. Cassius Longinus (after Rumpf 1964, 142 fig. 5d. Republished in Krumeich 2010, pl. 66 fig. 19).

rable.11 Further meanings were suggested by the interplay between statue and text. On 18 out of 21 reused statue monuments that have been found on the Acropolis, the old inscriptions were at least partially preserved during the reuse. Only three stones suffered complete erasure of the former inscription (Krumeich 2010, no. A1-3). On another six monuments, the original inscription was erased and replaced by a new inscription, but re-inscribed on another side of the stone (Krumeich 2010, no. A4-11).12 The statue of Archinos/Lentulus (Figure 1) is a good example of this: as can be seen from the drawing of the stone, the original dedicatory inscription of Archinos was erased and Lentulus’ dedication inscribed instead:

ὁ δῆμος | Πόπλιον Κορνήλιον Λέντλον | αὔγορα ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα

The demos (dedicated this) to Publius Cornelius Lentulus, augur, on account of his virtue. (IG II/III² 4102, lines 1-3)

The name ofἈρχῖνος Φανίου Ἐλευσίνιος, ‘Archinos, son of Phanios, from Eleusis’, probably part of the earlier dedication, was re-inscribed twice on the upper side of the base (IG II/III² 4102, A + B; I return to this in section 3 below). Finally, on the remaining eight or nine monuments, including that of Valerius Catullus (Figure 2) and Lucius Cassius (Figures 3 and 4), the original inscription was preserved in its entirety, on top of the new inscription that was chiselled below the existing inscription (Krumeich 2010, 368-385 no. B1-9). In most cases, then, the reuse was not undertaken in a furtive manner in Athens (in contrast to Rhodes, so Dio Chrys. Or. 31.38-40, 50, 139), but it was highlighted by the preservation of the statue and its old inscriptions. This particular nature of the interplay of image and text, of old and new, invited comparison between the Roman honorand and the Athenian past. The inscriptions on the statue base of the statue of L. Cassius Longinus, a descendant of one of the murderers of Caesar and ancestor of Caligula (PIR² C 502), is a good example of this. Its old inscription is composed of old letters and is set in stoichedon, granting the monument an appearance of age that added to its quality and

11 As argued also by Shear 2006, 245. See also the comparison implied in a reused statue monument from Kos, on which Bosnakis 2004 and Ma 2007a, 94-95. Contra Krumeich 2008, 361 and 2010, 354-355 who refutes the idea that an analogy or comparison was intended. For the deliberate combination of dedications on reused statues, see also the late-antique examples discussed in Machado 2017, 343-344. 12 On similar re-inscriptions from Oropos, see Ma 2007a.

Reused Statues for Roman Friends 173 Figure 4. Reconstruction of the reused statue monument of L. Cassius Longinus (Drawing by Julia Krug-Ochmann. Source: Krumeich 2010, pl. 65 fig. 17). noteworthiness (Figure 3; see also IG I³ 833 + IG II/III³ 4147 = Krumeich 2010 no. B4). Perhaps it was even redrawn in red on the occasion of the reuse to heighten its impact. The arrangement of the statue and the lettering (Figures 3 and4) invited comparison between Cassius and the Athenian citizen of the Classical period. Cassius seemed interchangeable with him. This was possible also because his name came without any reference to a Roman political office, filiation or, indeed, dating (on which below). As a result, Cassius, like all other Roman benefactors who received such reused statues, merged perfectly into the Athenian past (Shear 2006, 345-346; Krumeich 2010, 367). The manipulation of these survivals of the past as honours to Romans thus made it possible to carry the city’s cultural past into a Roman present and to suggest that this was also an Athenian one.13 However, it would be wrong to reduce these reused statues to an attempt to honour Roman politicians by inserting them into the Athenian past. As I argue in what follows, the statues also had an important euergetic element: they allowed portraying (would-be) Romans as energetic, godlike benefactors of Athens. They should hence be contextual- ized within the benefactor relationships between Athens and influential politicians in Rome.

13 Shear 2006 and Krumeich 2014a, 80 -81; on the Acropolis as a place of Athenian identity, see also Dally 2006; Stefanidou-Tiverriou 2008 and Krumeich & Witschel 2010.

174 STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) The euergetic aspect was played out in the statues tion had ever been effected. Perhaps we are dealing with as well as the dedicatory inscriptions of the reused proleptic honours, that is gifts that were made to wealthy monuments. The new statues showed the honorand in individuals in order to prompt a benefaction.18 What this a himation, the traditional Greek dress as was charac- means is that at least some of these statues may thus have teristic of Hellenistic honorary statues, which sought asked for benefactions rather than acknowledging them; to emphasize the civilian, gymnasium-qualities of the they may not have remembered a Roman benefaction to represented individuals (Zanker 1995, 254-261; Tanner Athens but have called for a deed that could be remem- 2000, 21). By contrast, in many of the older statues bered in the future. There is another aspect to consider there was a great sense of action. As a result, they were in the case of the reused statues. For while the inscrip- better suited to highlight particular qualities that were tions of new honorific monuments often at least included sought in benefactors: energy, dynamism and unlimited reference to an office, the honorands of the reused statues resources.14 For instance, the monument for the influen- appear as private individuals in the dedications, without tial senator Cassius Longinus (Figures 3 and 4) we have any mention of office. Take for instance the inscription just examined carried the statue of an idealised man in for Lucius Cassius (Figures 3 and 4). This stated only that: armour lunging forward (Krumeich 2010, 342-343); it hence insinuated that Cassius had the attitude of an ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος | Λεύκιον Κάσιον | ἀρετῆς energetic, courageous defender of Athens. Similarly, the ἕνεκα statue of Lentulus (Figure 1) represented this senator as a dynamic Greek warrior in heroic nudity with body The boule and the demos (dedicated this) to Lucius armour and lance (Krumeich 2010, 334-335), thus pre- Cassius on account of his virtue. (IG II/III² 4168) senting Lentulus as a perfect, almost godlike supporter of Athens. Catullus (Figure 2) was shown as a good Athenian This lack of reference to any office may reflect an citizen (Krumeich 2010, 343) and one that is respectful Athenian desire to award honours to the man rather than of his family and ancestors. The emphasis on family re- his office and, thereby, to establish patronage relationships lationships – which was played out in the pairing of his with powerful Roman individuals that rested on personal statue with that of his mother as well as their dedicatory connections rather than a specific office. I have already inscriptions (IG II/III³ 4159) – may perhaps be indication mentioned the emphasis on the private in Catullus’ statue of the fact that his family had a long-standing relation above (Figure 2). The same holds also for the statue for with Athens which he was expected to continue.15 In sum, Cornelius Lentulus (Figure 1). He is one of the two reused the statues powerfully expressed Athens’ expectation that statues that come with additional information about their these Romans would act (again) as dutiful, energetic, honorand.19 The office mentioned in the dedication to almost heroic benefactors of Athens.16 Lentulus is a public, religious one: he is entitled augur, The inscriptions were also important in this context. αὒγορα (IG II/III² 4102, line 2). As to why this Roman Honorary dedicatory inscriptions became increasingly religious offices was included in the dedicatory inscrip- simplistic in Hellenistic times, yet their grammar as well tion in Athens, there are several possible explanations, as the adjectives and honorific attributes used nonetheless which are mutually reinforcing. A religious office may functioned as important mirrors of the expectations of have seemed appropriate for the location of the statue, the awarding body.17 It is hence noteworthy that the in- the Athenian Acropolis. Further, the mentioning of the scriptions of most of the honorific monuments that were augurship highlighted Athens’ recognition of Lentulus’ erected between 100 BC and 100 AD on the Athenian prominent position in Rome.20 Finally, by including Acropolis come without indication of the nature of the Lentulus’ prestigious religious office in their caption of his benefaction; they justify the honours (only) with vague reused statue, the Athenians could emphasize that he was reference to virtue, ἀρετή, or similar (e.g. IG II² 4099 – 4255). As a result, it is not clear what sort of service had been rendered to the city, or, indeed, if a benefac- 18 On the concept of proleptic honours, see Domingo Gygax 2006, 45-57. 19 The other is that of Cn. Acerronius Proculus, proconsul of Achaea 14 On Greek statues and Roman patrons see generally Tanner 2000. in Claudian or Neronian time, who is called proconsul, ἀνθύπατον 15 On the reference to generational responsibility as a political (IG II/III² 4181), probably he received this honour while being strategy in public honours, see also Weidgenannt this volume. proconsul of Achaea. 16 On the different statue types used on the reused statue bases on the 20 Lentulus’ identity is not clear: he may be P. Cornelius Lentulus Acropolis, including equestrian and column statues, see Krumeich Spinther, who belonged to the circle of Caesar’s murderers (PIR ² 2008, 2010, 2011, 2014b. On Romans honoured as Greek heroes, C 1386), yet is it more likely that the statue was rededicated to his see also Vanderpool & Scotton this volume. son and namesake, consul in 14 BC (PIR ² C 1379). Both were 17 Heller & Van Nijf 2017b, 9, 13. On Greek honorific inscriptions prominent augurs in Rome (see Rüpke & Glock 2005, 918 no. in general, see McLean 2002, 236-237. 1354 and 915 no. 1344).

Reused Statues for Roman Friends 175 a dutiful servant of the gods, thereby suggesting that he office in the grain-rich provinces of Egypt and Cyrenaica, could also act as a dutiful benefactor of Athens. In any suggesting that their benefaction included the shipment case, the inclusion of his religious office was a strategic of corn to Athens.23 However, political favours, such as move to emphasize that the Athenians appreciated the reduction of taxation or similar, are also conceivable. Lentulus’ status in Rome and that they expected that he Given the lack of detail in the inscriptions of the three would act in her interests. monuments discussed above, it is not possible to establish The lack of detail – the absence of any information what favours were sought from Lentulus, Catullus and of the office or the nature of the benefaction – may also Cassius with these rare, reused statue monuments, yet the have been chosen to highlight the perennial, exemplary political influence of the targeted honorands suggests that nature of the act to assist Athens.21 It also suggested that Athens expected major favours from these men. even without benefaction, the honorand had the right What, then, do these reused statues revealed about the attitude to Athens. Finally, the simplicity of the dedicato- relationship of Athens and Rome under the Julio-Clau- ry inscriptions and their civilian aspect were grounded in dian dynasty? They show that rather than being a passive Greek usage, where emphasis was on the duties of citizens, recipient of Roman power, Athens actively managed her rather than officials, thus adding to the antiquarian and relation with Rome. This relationship was not one of honorific nature of the monument. resistance. Rather, the Athenians gave great honours to The shape of the reused statues as well as the wording prominent Roman politicians, in view of receiving financial of their dedications hence suitably underlined the qualities or political support in return. The examined monuments sought in benefactors. These old statues presented suggest that they targeted not only the imperial family,24 (potential) Roman friends of Athens as energetic, almost but also some of the most influential senators in Rome, godlike warriors fighting for the well-being of the city, members of powerful senatorial families who were able or as dutiful men with respect for familial and religious to occupy crucial positions under Augustus. In order to traditions of Athens. These reused statues employed the attract the attention and goodwill of these men, Athens Athenian past as a political resource to negotiate Athens’ chose to honour them with outstanding and special relation with Rome. This was also possible because monuments like the reused statues examined above which of Rome’s fascination with the Athenian past. Several highlighted their education, influence and status. Crucial literary works suggest that Athens’ past constituted an is the question of agency: as in the case of building projects important asset in her relation to Rome, in that repre- where agency lay with Athens, not Rome (as argued by sentatives of Roman power were often reminded of the Dally 2006; Stefanidou-Tiverriou 2008; Morales 2017, historical achievements of the city in order to gain their 133; Dickenson 2017, 242-50, 258-64), here, too, the goodwill towards Athens (e.g. Plut. Sul. 13.4; Cass. Dio Athenian demos actively approached Roman senators 42.14.2, App. B Civ 2.88; Tac. Ann. 2.53). In this at- for support and assistance. It appeared in the nomina- mosphere, Roman deeds could also be compared to past tive case, while the Roman honorands were placed in a Athenian achievements, such as Augustus’ successes at passive position, the accusative.25 The granting of honours Actium, which were compared to the Athenian battle of to external benefactors, while inviting Roman support for Salamis (Hölscher 1984 and Newby this volume) or Nero’s the city, thus also allowed reaffirming local autonomy in campaigns against the Parthians, which were linked to relation to Rome.26 Athens’ battle against the Persians (Spawforth 2012, 132 That Athens sought external funding for their city with reference to IG II² 1990). need not reflect financial difficulties. Rather, it reveals that Our inscriptions contain no clear information about the city continued to draw on foreign capital to finance the sort of benefaction that may have been expected of the public amenities, now approaching Roman senators Roman senators thus approached. Other sources reveal that Romans acted as benefactors in Athens by granting fair loans, financing of building works and giving free 23 Egypt: C. Aelius Gallus, IG II/III³ 4117 + 3882 = Krumeich 2010, grain rations.22 A hypothesis may be thus ventured on 375 no. A9; Crete and Cyrenaica: P. Octavius, IG I² 859 + IG the nature of the benefaction of two related monuments, II/III² 4156 = Krumeich 2010, 379 no. B3. I thank Dominic Rathborne for this suggestion. For the role of honorific decrees (to namely those of C. Aelius Gallus and P. Octavius: both held local elites) in times of food shortages, see also Weidgenannt this volume. 24 On the involvement of the Augustan dynasty in Athens, see Böhme 21 I propose to return to the exemplary connotations of these reused 1995, 42-75; Hoff 2001; Spawforth 2012, 59-86; Dickenson statues in a future paper. 2017, 147, 260 n. 259, 242-250, 258-264. 22 Loans and corn rations: Corn. Nep. Att. 2.4-5. Building works: 25 Already noted by Veyne 1962; see also Ma 2007, 213-215 and e.g. Plut. Pomp. 42.11; Cic. Att. 6.2.15; and IG II² 3175. On the Heller & Van Nijf 2017b, 9. building works associated with the family of Augustus, see n. 1 and 26 On the relationship of local honours and the imperial system, see n. 24. now Heller & Van Nijf 2017a.

176 STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) alongside Hellenistic kings.27 Still, there is no reason to from the Acropolis were very likely the result of the same rule out the possibility that part of the costs of their main- process. As the dedicatory inscriptions reveal, they were set tenance, including building projects, were paid by Athens up following a public decree by the demos (and the boule). and its local elites.28 There is no information about the selection process, yet it In sum, Athens rededicated old statues to prominent is highly likely that in Athens, too, an official was charged Roman senators to secure their goodwill and benefac- with identifying appropriate objects. Possibly, there even tions. Given the careful manner of reuse, the choice of the existed a list with appropriate monuments.31 statues and the wording of their dedications, the reused Public honours were granted by the demos. Yet in the statues constituted a public honour which allowed putting case of the reused statues from the Athenian Acropolis, pressure on Roman politicians to fulfil their potential as the role of the demos needs closer examination. For the friends of Athens. As a result, this use of the past as a statues that were reused had been set up as private ded- political resource allowed stressing the importance of ications; in Roman times they were re-appropriated by Athenian culture while at the same time proclaiming the demos as public honours.32 How was this justified?33 Athens’ interest in attracting Roman support and favour. Dio’s speech (Dio Chrys. Or. 31) is a useful source in this context, as the question of ownership is one very dear to him. Dio criticizes that in rededicating old honorary 3. A polity at work statue monuments, the city of Rhodes was appropriat- In the previous section, I have argued that the Athenians ing the foreign property (that of the former honorand). re-employed several statue monuments as political Dio goes into this question at length: twenty-three para- resources to attract Roman benefactions to their city. The graphs of his speech are dedicated to elaborating this topic discussion suggested that rather than being weak, resisting (31.32-56, 134). Amongst other things, he compares the subjects of Rome, the Athenians actively shaped their practice to several common abuses of foreign ‘property’, relationship with Rome. The present section proposes to such as the abduction of women (31.42) or slaves (31.34, analyze the reused statues as an expression of the political 42). Dio warns his audience that the fact that statues were culture within the Athenian polity, as examples of the ma- easily appropriated should not be seen as an excuse: after nipulation of public space in this period. I argue that their all, to appropriate other people’s statues was as iniquitous reuse allowed highlighting the authority of the city’s dem- a practice as was that of appropriating land, money or ocratic institutions over the increasingly politicized public houses (31.45). Yet the situation was even more complex. space on the Acropolis also against private initiatives from For Dio has to concede that the reused statues were in within Athens.29 fact the official property of the city of Rhodes: they were Honorific statues were the result of a political debate erected on civic ground and listed on the public records of and a vote in the city’s assembly.30 In Dio’s Rhodes, the the civic property (31.48). The Rhodians had thus every reuse of the statues as honorific monuments was decreed reason to argue that the statues were their property and by the people; they sent an archon to choose a suitable that they could use them as they pleased. To defend his statue to be rededicated (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.9, 52-53, position, Dio explained that once the statue had been 71). A few glimpses of the coordinated process this neces- awarded to a benefactor, it was no longer under the sitated can also be gained from the sanctuary of Athena control of the city, but had become the property of the Lindia (I.Lindos II, no. 419), where the reuse of statues honorand (31.47, 54-56). was regulated by decree of the demos. According to these The issue of property was thus potentially a problem- regulations, the magistrates (epistatai) had the responsi- atic one in the context of reused statues. The question thus bility of auctioning the new inscriptions, documenting poses itself: who owned the statues that were reused on the revenues of the sale of each inscription, in order to the Athenian Acropolis? Given the difficulty of establish- submit the sums to the sanctuary. But the Lindians had ing the original location of the statues on the Acropolis oversight over them and could ask them to certify the with any certainty, it remains unclear whether the reused funds procured in this way in its equivalent sum in silver (I.Lindos II, no. 419, lines 33-40). The reused monuments 31 See the papyrus from late-antique Egypt listing columns suitable for reuse with information of their measurements, material and 27 See e.g. the shift from Hellenistic to Roman funding in the financing state of preservation (P.Lond. III 755), discussed in Machado 2017, of the refurbishment of the Agora discussed in Dickenson 2017, 335-336. Such lists may also have existed in Athens. 242-250, 258-264. 32 Where it is recorded, the statues were set up as private dedications 28 Migeotte 1995 discusses the evidence for the Hellenistic period. before being reused as public honours in Roman times, see e.g. IG 29 For private strategies to assert control over public space, see I³ 833, 850, 859, 869, 900. IG II/III2 3691, 3823, 3850, 3882, Dickenson and Fouquet this volume. 4323, 4915. 30 On the process of awarding honorific statues in Greek cities, see 33 On the legal aspects involved in the reuse of statue monuments, see Tanner 2000; Ma 2013, 72-74 and Van Nijf 2015, 2016. Blanck 1969, 14-25 and Harter-Uibopuu 2013.

Reused Statues for Roman Friends 177 statues were erected on the public ground between the were reserved for foreign benefactors.35 Yet in Athens only individual sanctuaries or within them. If erected on public private monuments seem to have been reused, so that ground, the Athenian demos may (also) have explained local benefactors could not claim to have been dispos- that they were listed in the public property lists and thus sessed of their publicly decreed honours. In addition, in at its disposal. But even if the reused statues stood on the process of reuse the Athenians seem to have retained sanctuary ground, there was in principle also the possi- the name of the original dedicatee, in order to show that bility of reusing them. This is suggested by an inscription they welcomed private donations to the sanctuary, as well from the sanctuary of Athena Lindia, which records that as the name of the original honorand, whose deed they some sanctuaries arranged for themselves to sell the right deemed worthy of emulation.36 As a result, as in the case to have one’s name inscribed on existing statues, under the of reused metal objects that were reused in sanctuaries, premise that this was not to be removed from its original former honorands and dedicatees were not deprived of the location without a special decree on the matter (I.Lindos commemoration of their deed.37 Overall, the issue seems II, no. 419, lines 30-44). to have been one of memory rather than property: while The problem of ownership seems to have been inter- their monuments could be reused, it was important that linked with the treatment of inscription on the reused the names of the original dedicatees and honorands were statue bases. According to Dio’s evidence, in Rhodes the not forgotten. former dedications were chiselled out to make room for By reusing old statues in this way, the democratic insti- the new dedication. This disentitled earlier benefactors tutions of Athens powerfully asserted their authority over from the commemoration they had once awarded to them the Acropolis, a place of communal remembering. This (says Dio Chrys. Or. 31.9, 71). The situation that presents is particularly noteworthy because in Hellenistic times, itself in Athens is slightly different. As noted above, in this space was dominated by private, family monuments most cases the name of the former honorand was de- (Keesling 2007; Krumeich & Witschel 2010, 188-189). liberately retained (8 or 9 monuments, as in the case of In this context, the reference to a reused statue on the old Lucius Cassius, Figures 3 and 4) or partly re-inscribed on agora in Pausanias (Paus. 1.18.3) is perhaps a reflection the stone (6 monuments, as in the case of Lentulus) (see of the ability of the demos to exert authority also over discussion in Krumeich 2014, 75-79). Significantly, these this space, as it is also reflected in other (new) buildings re-inscriptions were carefully done, as the inscriptions of on the agora.38 This suggests that the reuse of private Archinos reveals (IG II/III² 4102 = Krumeich 2010, 373 dedications as public honours examined above is a neat no. A7, Figure 2). The first re-inscription of Archinos’ example of the ‘politicization or ‘officialization’ of sacred name, written in three lines and in crude lettering, seems space’, in which the private character of the individu- to have been replaced by one in smaller, neater letters al votive offering gave way to public control (Ma 2013, running parallel to the right side of the base, possibly 84). In Athens as elsewhere in Hellenistic cities, public replacing the less careful inscription which may have been space was not ‘simply ‘produced’ by economic or social covered with white paint. This suggests that the quality forces, but the result of creative acts by a civic community’ of the re-inscribed inscription mattered and that it was (Ma 2013, 75). A comparison of this evidence from the both deliberate and a matter of concern to at least some of material in Rhodes, Oropos and the sanctuary of Athena the onlookers.34 Several explanations present themselves. Lindia reveals that Athens seems to have been particular- Dio argues that the reuse of statues could affect the city’s ly notable in this respect. According to Dio, in Rhodes relationship with their benefactors, and it seems that he mainly public honours were reused. This may also hold is particularly concerned with local benefactors, who did not receive such prestigious reused honours. His speech 35 Only one statue may have been reused for a member of the reflects the political debates of his time regarding the Athenian elite: IG II/III³ 3823 + IG II/III³ 3912 = Krumeich standing of Greek benefactors in the Roman East more 2010, 384 no. B8. generally (see Jones 1978, 26-33; Platt 2006; Ng 2016), 36 This is suggested by the two lines ofIG II/III³ 3882. Here, the so that the question poses itself whether this may have name of the dedicatee as well as the honorand were re-inscribed on the top of the statue base when it was rededicated to Aelius been a problem also in Athens. Here, too, reused statues Gallus in Roman times, IG II/III³ 4117. This may suggest that in the case of monuments where only one name was retained (such as the monument of Archinos/Lentulus, Figure 1) dedicatee and the honorand were identical. However, due to the difficult source situation, this must remain a hypothesis. 34 But see the irregular arrangement of IG II/III2 3442. On IG II/III2 37 See Leypold, Mohr & Russenberger 2014, 13. 4119 + 3691 and IG II/III2 4117 + 3882 a (shortened) original text 38 The monument mentioned in Pausanias has not yet been identified. was re-inscribed between the feet of the statue and could be read On the assertion of the authority of democratic control over the together with the new dedication on the front side. Agora in this period, see Dickenson 2017, 317-323.

178 STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) true for the reused statues of the sanctuary of Oropos; 4. Conclusion however, here the former inscriptions were often erased, To conclude, this article has argued that the reuse of old so that there can be no certainty whether they had origi- statues on the Athenian Acropolis was a deliberate strategy nally also constituted public honours. That said, the pres- to manage both Athens’ relationship to Roman power ervation of original inscriptions in the reused private ded- and inner-Athenian debates about public space. In these ication of the people of Troezen (IG VII 334) may suggest monuments the past was remembered in a careful, strategic that the other reused statues, where no inscriptions were manner in view of gaining Roman support and favour for preserved, were public honours (Löhr 1993, 207-209, the city, in that old statues were awarded as public honours Ma 2007). In the sanctuary of Athena Lindia, the reuse to prominent Roman senators who were expected to act as probably concerned primarily private dedications to the (potential) benefactors for the city. At the same time, the goddess, yet only those which came without dedicatory reuse of private monuments as public honours also pow- inscriptions (i.e. without indication of the identity or erfully asserted the demos’ authority over the Acropolis, memory of the earlier donor, I.Lindos II, lines 30-32). a crucial place of Athenian memory and remembering. By contrast, the Athenian demos saw fit to reuse private The reused statues thus highlight the dynamism of local dedications which still carried their inscriptions. This was politics in the city of Athens under Roman rule and the a powerful expression of the authority of its democrat- importance of strategies of remembering in it. ic institutions over public space and potentially private property, and one that was directed not so much at Rome but at private individuals from Athens, who saw their Acknowledgements scope of action in public spaces on the Acropolis reduced. Previous versions of this paper were presented at In sum, the consideration of the reused statues as an ex- Groningen, Athens and Frankfurt. I would like to thank pression of polis politics has revealed the extent to which my audiences at these occasions as well as Onno van Nijf, public spaces had become politicized in Roman Athens, Florian Forster and my co-editors for their helpful remarks and highlight democratising shifts in the handling of and suggestions. I am also grateful to Ralf Krumeich for public space and memory in the city as it was played out the permission to use his illustrations in this article. on the Acropolis.

References Alcock, S. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek past. Landscape, Day, J. 1942. An Economic History of Athens under Roman Monuments, and Memories, Cambridge. Domination, New York. Anguissola, A. 2014. Remembering with Greek Master- Deininger, J. 1971. Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in pieces. Observations on Memory and Roman Copies. Griechenland, 217-86 v. Chr., Berlin. In: K. Galinski (ed.), Memoria Romana: Memory in Dickenson, C.P. 2017. On the Agora. The evolution of a Rome and Rome in memory, Ann Arbor, 117-136. public space in Hellenistic and Roman Greece (323 BC Bernhardt, R. 1985. Polis und römische Herrschaft in der -267 AD), Leiden. späten Republik (149-31 v. Chr.), Berlin. Domingo Gygax, M. 2006. Benefactors and rewards in the Blanck, H. 1969. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als ancient city. The origins of euergeticism, Cambridge. Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen und Römern, Rom. Eilers, C. 2002. Roman patrons of Greek cities Oxford. Böhme, C. 1995. Princeps und Polis. Untersuchungen zur Geagan, D.J. 1979. Roman Athens: some aspects of Herrschaftsform des Augustus über bedeutende Orte life and culture I. 86 BC – AD 267. ANRW 2.7.1, Griechenlands, München. 371-437. Bosnakis, D. 2004. Zwei Dichterinnen aus Kos. Ein neues Geagan, D.J. 1997. The Athenian elite: Romanization, inschriftliches Zeugnis über das öffentliche Auftreten Resistance, and the exercise of power. In: M.C. Hoff von Frauen. In: K. Höghammar (ed.), The Hellenistic (ed.), The Romanization of Athens, The Romanization of polis of Kos. Uppsala, 99-108. Athens. Proceedings of an international conference held Dally, O. 2006. Athen in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ein at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996), Oxford, 33-52. Werk des Kaisers Augustus? In: G. Emanuele & M. Graindor, P. 1927. Athènes sous Auguste, Bruxelles. Lombardo (eds), Atene e l’Occidente. i grandi temi, Griesbach, J. 2014. Jede(r) ist ersetzbar? Zur Wiederver- le premesse, i protagonisti, le forme della comunicazi- wendung von Statuenbasen im Asklepios-Heiligtum one e dell’interazione, i modi dell’intervento ateniese in von Epidauros. In: C. Leypold, M. Mohr & C. Rus- Occidente. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Atene, 25- senberger (eds), Weiter- und Wiederverwendungen von 27 maggio 2006, Athens, 43-53. Weihestatuen in griechischen Heiligtümern. Tagung am

Reused Statues for Roman Friends 179 Archäologischen Institut der Universität Zürich 21./22. Period: Recent Discoveries, New Evidence, Μουσείο Januar 2011, Zürcher archäologische Forschungen 2, Μπενάκη 4, Athen, 353-370. Rahden/Westfahlen, 55-69. Krumeich, R. 2010. Vor klassischem Hintergrund. Zum Habicht, C. 1995. Athen: Die Geschichte der Stadt in hel- Phänomen der Wiederverwendung älterer Statuen auf lenistischer Zeit, München. der Athener Akropolis als Ehrenstatuen für Römer. In: Harter-Uibopuu, K. 2013. Auf dass Ehren ewig währen. R. Krumeich & Chr. Witschel (eds), Die Akropolis von Epigraphische Zeugnisse zum Schutz von Auszeich- Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, nungen. In: R. Breitwieser, M. Frass & G. Nightingale Wiesbaden, 329-398. (eds), Calamus. Festschrift für Herbert Graßl zum 65. Krumeich, R. 2011. Vom Krieger zum Konsul. Zwei Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 245-260. frühklassische Weihgeschenke auf der Akropolis von Heller, A. & O.M. van Nijf (eds) 2017a. The Politics Athen und ihre Weiterverwendung in der frühen Kai- of Honour in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire, serzeit. In: O. Pilz & M. Vonderstein (eds), Keraunia. Leiden. Beiträge zu Mythos, Kult und Heiligtum in der Antike, Heller, A. & O.M. van Nijf 2017b, Introduction: Civic Berlin, 87-104. Honours, from Classical to Roman Times. In: Heller, Krumeich, R. 2014a. Denkmäler für die Ewigkeit? Zum A. & O.M. van Nijf (eds), The Politics of Honour in the Fortbestehen kollektiver und individueller Erinnerung Greek Cities of the Roman Empire, Leiden, 1-27. bei wiederverwendeten Statuen auf der Athener Hölscher, T. 1984. Actium und Salamis, JdI 99, 187-214. Akropolis. In: C. Leypold, M. Mohr & C. Russen- Hoff, M.C. 1989. Civil disobedience and unrest in berger (eds), Weiter- und Wiederverwendungen von Augustan Athens, Hesperia 58, 267-276. Weihestatuen in griechischen Heiligtümern. Tagung am Hoff, M.C. 1997. Laceratae Athenae: Sulla’s Siege of Archäologischen Institut der Universität Zürich 21./22. Athens in 87/6 B.C. and its Aftermath. In: M.C. Hoff Januar 2011, Zürcher archäologische Forschungen 2, & S.E. Rotroff (eds),The Romanization of Athens. Pro- Rahden/Westfahlen Zürich, 71-86. ceedings of an international conference held at Lincoln, Krumeich, R. 2014b. Ehrung Roms und Stolz auf die Nebraska (April 1996), Oxford, 19-35. Polis. Zur Repräsentation römischer Magistrate auf Hoff, M.C. 2001. An equestrian statue of Lucius Caesar der Akropolis von Athen. In: J. Griesbach (ed.), Polis in Athens reconsidered. Archäologischer Anzeiger 4, und Porträt. Standbilder als Medien der öffentlichen 583-599. Repräsentation im hellenistischen Osten, Studien zur Hoff, M.C. 2013. Greece and the Roman Republic: antiken Stadt 13, Wiesbaden, 141-153. Athens and Corinth from the Late Third Century Krumeich, R. & C. Witschel 2009. Hellenistische Statuen to the Augustan Era. In: J. DeRose Evans (ed.), A in ihrem räumlichen Kontext: Das Beispiel der Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, Akropolis und der Agora in Athen. In: A. Matthaei London, 559-577. & M. Zimmermann (eds), Stadtbilder im Hellenis- I.Lindos II = Blinkenberg, Chr. & K.F. Kinch 1941. mus. Die hellenistische Polis als Lebensform 1, Berlin, Lindos. Fouilles et recherches 1902 – 1914; Fouilles 173-226. de l’acropole. 2. Inscriptions publiées en grande partie Krumeich, R. & C. Witschel 2010. Die Akropolis als d’après les copies de K. F. Kinch, Berlin. zentrales Heiligtum und Ort athenischer Identitäts- Jones, C.P. 1978. The Roman world of Dio Chrysostom, bildung. In: R. Krumeich & Chr. Witschel (eds), Cambridge, MA. Die Akropolis von Athen im Hellenismus und in der Keesling, C.M. 2007. Early Hellenistic Portrait Statues römischen Kaiserzeit, Wiesbaden, 1-53. on the Athenian Acropolis. Survival, reuse, trans- Krumeich, R. & C. Witschel (forthcoming). Katalog formation. In: P. Schultz & R. von den Hoff (eds), der Basen statuarischer Weihgeschenke auf der Athener Early Hellenistic Portraiture. Image, style and context, Akropolis (vom 4. Jh. v. Chr. bis zur Spätantike). Cambridge, 141-160. Leypold, L., M. Mohr & C. Russenberger 2014. Der Keesling, C. M. 2010. The Hellenistic and Roman after- Umgang mit älteren Weihestatuen in griechischen lives of Dedications on the Athenian Akropolis. In: R. Heiligtümern. Eine Einführung. In: L. Leypold, M. Krumeich & Chr. Witschel (eds), Die Akropolis von Mohr & C. Russenberger (eds), Weiter- und Wied- Athen im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, erverwendungen von Weihestatuen in griechischen Wiesbaden, 303-327. Heiligtümern: Tagung am Archäologischen Institut Krumeich, R. 2008. Formen der statuarischen Repräsenta- der Universität Zürich 21./22. Januar 2011, Zürcher tion römischer Honoranden auf der Akropolis von archäologische Forschungen 2, Rahden/Westfahlen, Athen im späten Hellenismus und in der frühen Kai- 11-19. serzeit. In: S. Vlizos (ed.), Athens During the Roman Löhr, C. 1993. Die Statuenbasen im Aphiareion von Oropos, AM 108, 183-212.

180 STRATEGIES OF REMEMBERING IN GREECE UNDER ROME (100 BC - 100 AD) Lo Monaco, A. 2016. Wreaths, shields, and old statues. & R. Leader-Newby (eds), Art and Inscriptions in the Roman magistrates in the sanctuaries of Greece. In: Ancient World, Cambridge, 247-271. M. Melfi & O. Bobou (eds),Hellenistic sanctuaries Pérrin-Saminadayar, É. 2007. Visites impériales et visites between Greece and Rome, Oxford, 206-227. royales à Athènes au 1er siècle de notre ère: histoire et Luraghi, N. 2010. The Demos as Narrator: Public raison d’un rendez-vous manqué. In: Y. Perrin (ed.), Honours and the Construction of Future and Past. Neronia VII. Rome, l’Italie et la Grèce. Hellénisme In: L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke & N. Luraghi (eds), et philhellénisme au premier siècle ap. J.-C., Brussels, Intentional History. Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, 126-144. Stuttgart, 247-263. Quass, F. 1984. Zum Einfluss der römischen Nobilität auf Ma, J. 2007a. Observations on honorific statues at Oropos das Honoratiorenregime in den Städten des griechis- (and elsewhere), ZPE 160, 89-96. chen Ostens, Hermes 112, 199-215. Ma, J. 2007b. Hellenistic honorific statues and their in- Rose, C.B. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial scriptions. In: Z. Newby & R. Leader-Newby (eds), Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period, Cambridge. Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge, Rüpke, J. & A. Glock (eds) 2005. Fasti Sacerdotum. Die 203-220. Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale Funk- Ma, J. 2013. Statues and Cities. Honorific Portraits and tionspersonal römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford. jüdisch-christlicher Kulte in der Stadt Rome vom 300 c. Machado, C. 2017. Dedicated to eternity? The reuse Chr. bis 499 n. Chr. 2. Biographien, Stuttgart. of statue bases in late antique Italy. In: K. Bolle, C. Rumpf, A. 1964. Zu den Tyrannenmördern. In E. Ho- Machado & C. Witschel (eds), The Epigraphic Cultures mann-Wedeking & B. Segall (eds.) Festschrift Eugen of Late Antiquity, Stuttgart, 323-361. v. Mercklin, Waldsassen, 131-151. McLean, B.H. 2002. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy Samons, L.J. 2013. Forms and Forums of Public Speech. of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the In: H. Beck (ed.), Aux origins de l’Hellenisme. La Crète Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C. – et la Grèce. Hommage à Henri van Effenterre, Malden, A.D. 337), Ann Arbor. 267-283. Migeotte, L. 1995. Finances et constructions publiques. Shear, J.L. 2006. Reusing statues, rewriting inscriptions In: M. Wörrle & P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bür- and bestowing honours in Roman Athens. In: Z. gerbild im Hellenismus. München, 79-86. Newby & R. Leader-Newby (eds), Art and Inscriptions Morales, F.A. 2017. The monument of Roman and in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 221-246. Augustus on the Athenian Acropolis. Imperial iden- Spawforth, A.J.S. 2012. Greece and the Augustan Cultural tities and local traditions. In: W. Vanacker & A. Zui- Revolution, Cambridge. derhoek (eds), Imperial identities in the Roman World, Tanner, J. 2000. Portraits, Power, and Patronage in the London, 141-161. late Roman Republic, JRS 90, 18-50. Ng, D.Y. 2016. Monuments, Memory, and Status Rec- Stefanidou-Tiveriou, Th. 2008. Tradition and Romaniza- ognition in Roman Asia Minor. In: K. Galinksi tion in the monumental landscape of Athens. In: S. (ed.), Memory in Ancient Rome and early Christianity, Blizos (ed.), Athens during the Roman Period. Recent Oxford, 235-360. discoveries, new evidence, Athens, 11-39. Nijf, O. M. van, 2015. Civic Mirrors: Honorific Inscrip- Touloumakos, J. 1967. Der Einfluss Roms auf die Staats- tions and the Politics of Prestige. In: A.B. Kuhn (ed.), form der griechischen Stadtstaaten des Festlandes und der Social Status and Prestige in the Graeco-Roman World, Inseln im ersten und zweiten Jhdt. v. Chr., Göttingen. Stuttgart, 233-245. Veyne, P. 1962. Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Nijf, O. M. van, 2016. Monuments, mémoire et éducation Domitilla et les déducaces grecques et latines, Latomus civique. Les inscriptions honorifiques commes miroirs 21, 49-98. civiques. In: S. Benoist, A. Daguet-Gagey & C. Wörrle, M. 1995. Vom tugendsamen Jüngling zum ‘ge- Hoët-van Cauwenberghe (eds), Une mémoire en actes. stressten’ Euergeten. Überlegungen zum Bürgerbild Espaces, figures et discours dans le monde romain, Ville- hellenistischer Ehrendekrete. In: M. Wörrle & P. neuve d’Ascq, 47-65. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenis- Payne, M. J. 1984. Aretes heneken. Honors to Romans and mus, München, 241-250. Italians in Greece from 260 to 27 BC, East Lansing, Zanker, P. 1995. Brüche im Bürgerbild? Zur bürgerlichen MI. Selbstdarstellung in den hellenistischen Städten. In: Petrakos, V.C. 1997. Οἱ ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ Ὀρωποῦ, Athens. M. Wörrle & P. Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Bürger- Platt, V. 2006. ‘Honour takes wing’: unstable images and bild im Hellenismus, München, 251-273. anxious orators in the Greek tradition. In: Z. Newby

Reused Statues for Roman Friends 181